I’m against the death penalty in all circumstances. If it’s going to be carried out anyway (and it will be, for some time to come, unfortunately), I’d like to know that it’s being done in as painless a way as possible. So in that sense, a recognition that the current three-injection procedure is or may be broken is good. (Personally, I’d like to hope that such recognition helps lead towards abolition.)

However, funnily enough, I’m also against experimenting on the people you’re trying to put to death as you put them to death. It seems to me that that can only add to the punishment.

Really, those in favour of the death penalty are in a bit of a bind, aren’t they? (1) They think the State should be able to kill – BUT (2) they accept that any such killing should be humane and painless.

That overlooks the fact that killing someone is, by its nature, a violent, traumatic act.

A state prosecutor who is quoted in the Guardian article almost gets there:

Charles Wille, a state prosecutor, told Associated Press: “Somebody has to be first. This plan is consistent with a long history of states attempting to take a very difficult social responsibility and make it less difficult.”

Charlie-boy, let me help you. What you’re missing is this: Killing someone is wrong and violent. In a civilised community, it should be difficult. That’s actually a good thing.

If you insist on sticking to the State position that the State can kill, you have to accept all the ramifications of that position. And that includes not trying to wriggle out of the fact that killing someone should be difficult.

If it’s too difficult for you, maybe you should consider supporting the abolition of the death penalty?